After Rafah Opening, Robert Naiman Struggles to Stay Relevant

HP blogger Robert Naiman has written several articles for the HP all about how much of a great person he is because he's agreed to go on the most recent flotilla to Gaza. Unfortunately for him, the border between Egypt and Gaza is now open thanks to the Egyptian government. Here's what the HP article had to say about the opening of the border:

"Under the new system, virtually anyone can travel, and a much larger number of Palestinians are expected to be able to cross each day.

Hundreds of Gazans gathered early Saturday as the first bus load of passengers crossed the border at 9 a.m. Two Egyptian officers stood guard next to a large Egyptian flag atop the border gate as the vehicle rumbled through. One after another buses crossed Rafah, pulling blue carts behind them with luggage piled high.
"All we need is to travel like humans, be treated with dignity and feel like any other citizens of the world who can travel in and out freely," said Rami Arafat, 52, who hoped to catch a flight out of Cairo on Sunday to attend his daughter's wedding in Algeria.
Nearby, 28-year-old Khaled Halaweh said he was headed to Egypt to study for a master's degree in engineering at Alexandria University.
"The closure did not affect only the travel of passengers or the flowing of goods. Our brains and our thoughts were under blockade," said Halaweh, who said he hadn't been out of Gaza for seven years...
Israel, which controls Gaza's cargo crossings, allows most consumer goods into Gaza, but still restricts exports as well as the entry of much-needed construction materials, saying they could be used by militants. Israel also enforces a naval blockade aimed at weapons smuggling. "

Now, for someone who is genuinely pro-Palestinian, this would be considered nothing but good news. The suffering of the Gazans has been abated and Israel is left looking like a fool. Hooray. But for Mr. Naiman, this presents a big problem. Why should we his readers read his columns and contribute to his cause of bringing aid to Gaza if the border to Gaza is completely open? We shouldn't. So what does Mr. Naiman do in his most recent column? Spin like his job depends on it, which of course it does.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Palestinians Denied Passports by PA

Think the Huffington Post will cover this news, of Palestinians being held captive and caged...by their own government?

Salim Sharab, who heads a campaign for Gaza residents denied passports, said Shaath promised to resolve the issue for 400 Palestinians waiting for passports.

But Sharab said the response was not satisfactory as some 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza had been denied passports by the PA.

Those poor suffering Gazans, but we know suffering only counts when you're suffering at the hands of the Jews. Palestinian on Palestinian suffering, meh.

[H/T Challah Hu Akbar]

Cool New Video

A new video about the history of Jerusalem:

The Second "Strength" Two-Step

This article contains a continuation of my thoughts on the "strength" two-step engaged in by critics of Israel, in which they use Israel's military power an excuse for unfair criticism of Israel or ignoring inconvenient information about the situation in the Middle East. This post will be about the latter.

One of the most common accusations that we see toward Israel is that they "play the victim" or that they are "paranoid." If you really need to see examples of this, here are two, but I think we have all seen it. The claim is that because Israel has nuclear weapons and a lot of guns, that they have nothing to worry about. This argument only works, as you might not be surprised to hear, by disregarding information that does not fit the theory.

Most obviously, Israel is engaging in asymmetrical warfare with the Palestinians. A phrase that I like to use is "A suicide bomber has no chance against a tank, but a bus full of civilians has no chance against a suicide bomber." Israel's critics prefer to ignore the second part and concentrate solely on the first. To put it more simply, all the nuclear weapons in the world wouldn't have protected the Fogel family or the victims of Nidal Hassan. Neither would tanks or planes or grenade launchers. Why? Because Israel's enemies have figured out how to achieve their objectives despite Israel's military strength. Israel knows this, their enemies know this, but Israel's "critics" just expect everyone to ignore it.

It is simply a matter of Israel's enemies being "conveniently dense." When they hear there is a threat to Israel, they convince themselves that there is only one kind of threat: an existential one, like that posted in 1948 and 1973. They simply "forget" that even if Israel is here to stay, the threat of attacks like bombings, stabbings and shootings is a very real problem.

But these "critics" of Israel just expect their powerful military to sit there and watch while their friends and family die around them. Don't believe me? Just look at their reactions to every measure of self-defense that Israel takes:

Cast Lead? "Brutality!"
Airstrikes against rocket launchers? "Extermination!"
Security fence? "Wall of evil!"
Commando raids? "Murder!"
Iron Dome? "Waah! Too expensive!"

We have long known about the "Israel can defend itself but only without hurting or inconveniencing anyone" tactic, that's been used for a while. Why this is another level of hypocrisy is that Israel's critics dance more than a two step, but a three step:

Step 1: There is no threat! You're paranoid!
Step 2: Okay there is a threat, but it's your fault!
Step 3: Hey! Stop trying to end that threat!

The double talk has never stopped, and it probably never will, but as we enter a new phase of interactions between Israel, the Palestinians, and America, it's useful to remember just how the anti-Zionists twist the facts to try and keep Israel from keeping its people alive. Like far too many people involved with politics, they aren't interested in knowing about the way that the situation really works, and yet demand that we listen to them all the same. What else is new.

The "Strength" Two-Step

The "strength" two-step is a topic that I wanted to discuss for a while but was looking for a good example. The beginning of the dance is where a critic of Israel declares that Israel, being the stronger power, has the greater responsibility to make peace. Let us take Prof Ira Chernus as an example:

"Obama told a meeting of Jewish leaders in private that he knows the truth of the situation: "Israel is the stronger party here… And Israel needs to create the context for [peace] to happen." But as long as his public words reinforce the myth of Israel’s insecurity, the Israelis can safely resist any demands for change."

In fact Professor Chernus often goes on about what he calls "the myth" of Israel's insecurity. Israel has planes, tanks, guns, nuclear weapons, blah blah blah. We've all heard it before. The point is that because Israel is stronger in basically every way that matters, they should be the ones to take the first step to make peace and they should give up more for peace than the Palestinians. This is a position with which I do not take issue, and the truth is that Israel will have to do much more than the Palestinians for the situation to be resolved. However, these same critics can occasionally take it too far. For example:

"Hamas has, in fact, been moving steadily toward a form of secular nationalism and greater political moderation. Its government in Gaza is busy fending off threats from the true theocrats of the Muslim right, who despise Hamas. The rare volleys of Hamas rockets that now come into Israel are triggered by and responses to Israeli attacks."

In which actual threats to Israel are ignored in favor of the "myth"-based narrative. But we'll get to that in a future post. The point that Prof. Chernus and people like him are trying to make is that Israel is more capable of absorbing attacks because they are stronger, so they shouldn't be afraid to do so. Again, no problem. Except when the two sides go to the negotiating table, and suddenly Israel's strength is a bad thing. Let's go to Prof Chernus again:

"The staggering power imbalance between occupier and occupied points to another looking-glass-style distortion that dominates America’s conversation about the issue: the absurd idea that the two parties could negotiate as equals, that the weaker of the two, which has already given up approximately 78% of its territory, must be the one to make the major compromises, and then operate as a nation from a position of utter weakness."

If you look at any negotiation, the stronger party calls the shots and has the advantage. That's just the way it works. But Professor Chernus, and people like him, want to have their cake and eat it too. They want Israel, as the stronger party, to make 95% of the sacrifices in the interests of peace, but they also don't want Israel to set the tone of the negotiations. They want Israel to have all the disadvantages of their strength (strength gained in blood) but none of the advantages. They can't stand the idea of the two parties being unequal when they get to the negotiating table. So they dance the two step: Israel is strong and must make concessions, but then Israel must be cut down by someone else so that they aren't strong and will make peace. Again, as if it were Israel's fault that the Palestinians have walked away from every treaty ever offered them. But that's a discussion for another time.

Of course, hypocrisy and duplicity among Israel's "critics" is hardly new. I just wish that sometimes they would realize their own double-talk, and then maybe they could get somewhere.

New on the HP: Rabbi Gordis on J-Street

We haven't heard much from J-Street on the Huffington Post lately, but Rabbi Daniel Gordis has a new article about them. And as you can see here, he cuts right to the heart of the issue that many Israelis have with it:

"But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don't have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?"

Read the whole thing.

Ruth Eglash is Still Israeli

Huffington Post blogger and Jerusalem Post correspondent Ruth Eglash thought that she would write a touching story about "Palestinian Idol," and about the hopes and dreams of the participants in that contest. Along the way she criticizes her fellow Israelis and their attitudes toward the Palestinians, and one gets the impression from the article that her reason for writing it was to change that perception.

Regardless, she still was the recipient of some personal attacks from the Huffington Post readership:

Ms. Eglash should have known better: It doesn't matter how supportive of the Palestinians you are. If you're Israeli, you deserve whatever you get.

Another Day...

...another barely-disguised conspiracy theory by a Huffington Post blogger:

"Arab Americans meanwhile, are attempting to put pressure on Congress, but they will most probably fail. This is because the political structure of the U.S. Congress and the American electoral process relies greatly on Jewish funds and votes."

 Raghida Dergham. Huffington Post.

And yet later in the article she complains that there is a need "to de-stifle the debate." I would say it is amazing what bloggers can get away with on the Huffington Post, but MJ Rosenberg has been saying stuff like this for years.

More News The HP Doesn't Cover: No Palestine Without UNSC

This could be a problem....

The president of the UN General Assembly said Friday there is no way that a Palestinian state could become a member of the United Nations without a recommendation from the Security Council.

Joseph Deiss told a news conference that if the United States or any other permanent council member used its veto, the General Assembly would not be able to vote on membership for Palestine.

“The General Assembly cannot take the initiative, but we are ready to do our work as soon as a recommendation of the Security Council will be addressed,” Mr. Deiss said.

He said the UN “is not necessarily creative of statehood, but to be a member of United Nations at least gives you an international recognition and gives you also protection since one of the goals of the United Nations is to protect the sovereignty of its members.”

 Of course, this could also mean that "Palestine" would be recognized as a state but wouldn't be considered part of the United Nations. Which could get confusing.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Pro-Israel Lawfare

International law is a fickle thing, anti-Zionists love it when it can be used against Israel, anti-Zionists don't care about it when Palestinians violate it. Too bad we'll never know their reaction to this news, that 60 international lawyers have come forward to say that Israeli settlements are legal and Palestinian declaration of statehood on the 1967 lines is not.

"An international group of some 60 attorneys, including former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker, has appealed to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to prevent a General Assembly resolution on unilateral Palestinian statehood, based on the pre-1967 lines.

In a letter dated Wednesday, the attorneys noted that such a resolution would be a violation of all past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. They added that it would also contravene UN resolutions 242 and 338.

According to the attorneys, the legal basis for the establishment of the state by the League of Nations in 1922 affirmed its presence on territories that included Judea, Samaria, and what is now east Jerusalem.

“This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of US Congress,” the attorneys stated.

According to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the attorneys said, rights granted to all states or people by already existing international instruments – including those adopted by the League of Nations – remain valid.

As a result, the attorneys said, the “650,000 Jews [who] presently reside in the areas of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, reside there legitimately.”

The 1949 Armistice Agreement stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines, or to claims of either Party relating thereto,” the attorneys said. Therefore, they said, “the 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed.

Past resolutions have called for a negotiated solution to the conflict, the attorneys affirmed.

Additionally, attempts to unilaterally change the status of the territory would be a breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the attorneys said.

When the Palestinians agreed to the Oslo Accords, they knew that the settlements existed and would be one of the issues that would be negotiated during talks for a permanent-status arrangement, the attorneys said.

The Olso Accords did not limit settlement activity, they added. "

No way the Huffington Post would published such a narrative-devastating article.

[H/T Daled Amos]

Comment of the Day

Posted on the unmoderated thread sharing the news that Gaza's border with Egypt is now open:

 

The Israel lobby "influences every aspect of American life"? The Elders of Zion are alive and working their evil in America, according to this HPer and his 11 favorites.

The original link.

A Different Projection of the Future

This article is a little bit old, and I must confess that I have forgotten where that I found it, but it is important because it is about a study of trends in the Middle East, and that the future may not favor Israel's enemies as much as they would like you to think:

"At constant fertility, Israel will have more young people by the end of this century than either Turkey or Iran, and more than German, Italy or Spain.

"Not that the size of land armies matters much in an era of high-tech warfare, but if present trends continue, Israel will be able to field the largest land army in the Middle East. That startling data point, though, should alert analysts to a more relevant problem: among the military powers in the Middle East, Israel will be the only one with a viable population structure by the middle of this century.

"That is why it is in America's interest to keep Israel as an ally. Israel is not only the strongest power in the region; in a generation or two it will be the only power in the region, the last man standing among ruined neighbors. The demographic time bomb in the region is not the Palestinian Arabs on the West Bank, as the Israeli peace party wrongly believed, but rather Israel itself. "

A comforting lie that people (on any side of any issue) like to tell themselves is that time is on their side. We shall see.

Hezbollah Supports Assad, HPers Show Their Support

The Huffington Post, in a rare display of covering anti-Israel groups, published an article about how Hezbollah has thrown its support behind Assad in the recent Syrian uprisings. Most of the anti-Zionists we usually see around didn't throw in their two cents on this thread, but those that did proved very interesting.

The original link

Hezbollah supports Syria! It must be the Israel lobby's fault. Yes, I do only have one note, why do you ask? The original link.

The original link

 The original link

Ah, the Huffington Post. Never fails to disappoint. 

"Merely Critical of Israel's Policies" Comment of the Day

Check out this reply to one of my posts:

Good lesson for us Jews. If we start to think we're equal to everyone else, that we should have a state like everyone else, we deserve to be shot. "Longtallsally" said it, not me.

The original link.

Admission of the Day

In the latest MJ Rosenberg article, I asked him to just admit what he obviously thought: That the Jews control America. I was actually kind of surprised that it made it through the censors, as well as this response to it:

Still, I'm glad that at least one of them had the courage to come right out and say it.

The original link.

An Interesting HuffPo Editorial Decision

Check out this picture that has appeared in some sections of the Huffington Post's "World" area:

Now, the people in the picture don't look like Israelis to me. So I cannot help but wonder if the Huffington Post decided to contrast a statement of "painful concessions" by Israel with another picture of a Palestinian bloody shirt to wave. What's even stranger is that there isn't even an article behind this headline, if you click on the link it doesn't go anywhere.

Comments of the Day

The original link.

(Now deleted)

How Omar Baddar Takes Criticism

Along with many other Huffington Post bloggers, Omar Baddar has decided to weigh in on the last round of discussion between the US and Israel about making peace with the Palestinians. This time he is upset. Very upset. At Representative Eric Cantor, who has made what Mr. Baddar calls "disgraceful" and "shameless" criticism of "Arab culture." Before anything else, we should probably take a look at exactly what Cantor said. After telling a story about a Palestinian woman who tried to blow up the Israeli hospital that had been treating her (very informative), here is the quoted section used by Mr. Baddar:

"Sadly it is a culture infused with resentment and hatred. But it is this culture that underlies the Palestinians' and the broader Arab world's refusal to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And this, this [repeated for emphasis], is the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, it is NOT about the '67 lines."

This doesn't sound like hatred to me, it sounds like very legitimate (though harsh) criticism. It is not Israelis who came up with the phrase "love death more than you love life." And although there are things to criticize about the Arab culture (just like every other culture), this isn't the point of this post. The questions is how Mr. Baddar responded to this pointed and cutting criticism of the Palestinians and their Arab allies.

As you might expect, he used the classic defense known as the red herring. Uh oh, Cantor is criticizing the fact that we won't accept Israel's right to exist? Hey, look at these polls of high schoolers! Or these settlers honoring Goldstein! Quick quick! Don't pay attention to us! Don't criticize us, criticize the Jews! And then he switches to a strawman:

"We can either engage in this distasteful, useless, and purely emotional competition of which side suffers from more hatred..."

Classic Palestinian supporter defense. Hey guys, we don't want to talk about who is suffering more (even though it's totally us, and don't you forget it) so stop criticizing us! Instead, let's talk about why the conflict takes place. Here's a spoiler: It's your fault, not ours. It can never be ours:

"The root cause of the conflict is political injustice. That political injustice has many aspects, but its primary aspect is Israel's illegal and ruthless occupation of the Palestinian territories...."

And et cetera. At this point you practically know what Mr. Baddar is going to say. There can be no peace without justice, Palestinian hatred is a result of being occupied and not because of brainwashing, nothing at all of any consequence happened before 1967. You get the picture. Still, this article is informative because it shows how willing the Palestinian supporters are to hear criticism from the other side: In other words, not at all. And then they wonder why nothing changes on the ground.

Anti-Semitic Freakout of the Day

On one of the many Netanyahu speech related threads:

Link

Link

Today's Attacks On A HuffPo Blogger

Abraham Foxman of the ADL was one of many Huffington Post bloggers who weighed in after all the speeches finished last week. His article was (I thought) pretty fact-based, especially by HP standards, and this was reflected in the comments. None of them were fact-based, and were generally just repeating talking points like "Israel shouldn't exist" or "Israel doesn't want peace." Some went to the next level of personal attack:

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Posted on one of the HP's dozens of Netanyahu/1967 lines threads, but it has nothing to do with the content of this post:

I don't think this user is capable of seeing the irony of his comment. Oh well.

the original link.

MJ Rosenberg Doesn't Hide It Anymore

I know we've been posting a lot about MJ Rosenberg lately, but his latest article is just so ridiculous that it needed to be shared. He saw Netanyahu's speech to Congress the other day, along with some of the reactions from those Congresspeople, and it clearly threw him into a kind of rage. I could talk about all the complaints he throws at Netanyahu, and Obama, and the Palestinians, and so forth. But instead I'll just show you all the ways he implies that the Jews run America, I mean AIPAC controls Congress. Emphasis mine:

"It was as if it believes that it can shout its lungs out for Netanyahu (and thereby secure those campaign contributions from AIPAC), without any consequences to U.S. policy and national interests in the Arab world."

"And AIPAC, using the leverage its campaign contributions gives it, would hold Obama's feet to the fire too."

"The good news is that, although Congress is in Netanyahu's pocket, the Obama administration isn't."

"And they can send a signal to our allies that although the United States cannot openly oppose Bibi's policies because of Congress -- and AIPAC's control of it -- the allies can."

Sooner or later, Mr. Rosenberg's endless accusations of Jewish control of America is going to catch up with him. Except that he won't be the one to suffer for it, the American Jews that he pretends to care about will pay the price for his inflammatory rhetoric. Will he even notice?

PS: As one of the HuffPosters pointed out, AIPAC isn't a PAC (despite the name). It doesn't give campaign contributions. Nice on, Mr. Rosenberg.

HPW: Leonard Nimoy Describes Jewish Roots

The Huffington Post published a great article about the legendary actor Leonard Nimoy and his relationship with Judaism. You would think an article like this would not be controversial in any way, but it has the word "Jewish" in the headline, so some anti-Semitic HPers couldn't help themselves. By the time I went through the thread, there were several comments that had already been deleted, so we're left to imagine what they were. It's illuminating to see the ones that remained. Click below the fold for some of the comments I collected, but here's one to start you off.

Brett Y
But he said the greatest Jewish value the show depicted was the idea of "tikkun olam," or healing the world.
Too bad current jews don't put this idea into practice more often. 

"Jewish Money" Is Back

There have been a couple of threads about AIPAC and their relationship with Netayahu and Obama. Naturally, the moderators must have been paying half attention because the phrase "Jewish money" appears more than I would have thought, along with the inevitable implication that Jews control everything:

Today's HuffPo Informative Picture Choice

Because nothing says "rare address to Congress" like the "I got my hand caught in a garbage disposal" look.

Video: The Huffington Posts' Bias in Pictures

Here is a new video that proves the bias of the Huffington Post on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict:

MJ Rosenberg Changes His Tune (Again)

Hey, do you remember when MJ Rosenberg was accusing AIPAC of "intimidating Congress?" Or that time he thinks Congress needs to "free itself" from them? Or that not even the media is "free" from "the lobby's baleful influence?" Well, even if you don't remember any of that, you gotta remember this, we posted a link to it just yesterday:

So we got it, Mr. Rosenberg has made it very clear. Every single member of AIPAC and "the lobby" are traitors, fifth-columnists, Israel-firsters, you name. They aren't good people. That is, until President Obama's speech to them on Sunday. Let's ask Mr. Rosenberg how it went:

"And AIPAC accepted it, even applauded it. The right-wing meme was destroyed, as much by AIPAC's reaction as by Obama's explanation...And AIPACapplauded [sic]. Strongly....Bravo, Mr. President. You even brought out the best in AIPAC."

 Hooray! AIPAC are back on the side of the righteous again! And who would have imagined that all they needed to do was support the same politicians Mr. Rosenberg does and agree with the same policies as him!

More than anything else this article tells us how Mr. Rosenberg operates. If you don't agree with him (and by extension, his politicians) you are a dirty traitor who needs move back to Israel where you belong. If you agree with him, you're in the clear. It's an excellent blend of the anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty (and of course ZOG) and McCarthyism. Perhaps we should come up with a new term for what Mr. Rosenberg does: Rosenbergism, McCarthyism for Jews.

Sharmine Narwani on American Jews

After reading Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani's comment on Sunday, I went through some of her comments and found this chilling one. It was posted on MJ Rosenberg's recent rant against the all-powerful, all-knowing Israel-firster lobby as a response to a post about Obama losing the Jewish vote.

Listen up, American Jews. You are not allowed to vote on Jewish issues like Israel, because if you do, you're not loyal Americans and British Iranians like Sharmine Narwani will accuse you of disloyalty. Just shut up and keep protesting the occupation. You don't want to be considered disloyal, do you? We all know what happened last time you were disloyal to your country...

the original link.

Barry Lando Toes the Line

A Huffington Post blogger with the Star Warsian name of Barry Lando is one of their many foreign policy related bloggers, who as far as I can tell has never written anything positive about Israel. His latest article has the usual rhetorical trick of speaking "for" somebody else, in this case he imagines what he would say if he were President Obama at AIPAC. As you might not be surprised to hear it contains all the wishful thinking that we have come to see from critics of Israel, i.e. "if only Obama would really sock it to those Zionists we could have peace!" If that was all this article contained, I wouldn't mind so much. However, in the course of this article he make some...informative comments about "the Israel lobby." Remember as we quote him that he is speaking in the persona of President Obama.

I guess we'll start with the actual politics that Lando's Obama spells out in this article. He agrees that Hamas are terrorists, and that it should "reconsider its aims," but then immediately remains Israel about two long dead prime ministers of theirs who were also called terrorists (but not by the USA). Never seen that one before. He wants a settlement freeze, of course, and that Netanyahu should negotiate and be committed to peace. He also declares that this imaginary Obama will support the Palestinian resolution in September.

But of course all this is a side show. The truth is that Mr. Lando believes that AIPAC rules America, and his imaginary Obama is going to take them out! Here is a selection of quotes from the article in which Mr. Lando reveals exactly what he thinks is going on (emphasis mine):

"The reason I'm here is because you are the most powerful lobby in Washington -- the mightiest senators and congressmen live in terror of your disapproval. Your decision on who to support will be a key factor in the coming presidential elections.That power has brought you innumerable victories."

"That doesn't translate into continuing to give AIPAC the right to call the shots on a key element of our Middle Eastern Policy."

 "Isn't there a danger that such a massive campaign [against me] may demonstrate to the American people -- to all the American people -- exactly the point I have been making in this speech? That is -- the extent to which your lobby has distorted the workings of our democratic system. In short, in the end, your attempt to defeat my desire to pursue a policy that is in the interests of all Americans -- as well as the State of Israel -- could lead to your own downfall."

This is insulting not only to AIPAC and the members of the "Israel lobby," but to all American Jews and to all Americans who support Israel. At the conclusion of the first paragraph quoted above, Mr. Lando claims that those "victories" won by AIPAC has been US aid to Israel and tolerance of Israel's nuclear program. Have you got it? The only reason why America supports Israel is because of "the lobby" and nothing else. And before you get the idea that this lobby represents the majority of the American people, Mr. Lando's fictional Obama is going to tell you differently:

"As president of the United States, I was elected to serve the interests of all 300 million Americans -- not a tiny minority, numbering just 2.2% of our population. Of course, we value your great contributions to all facets of our society and our culture..."

Right. The only reason we support Israel is because of "the lobby" and "the lobby" only cares about Israel because it is in the interests of American Jews to do so. In other words, America is being led around by the nose by "a tiny minority." Any guesses on who that could be? Mr. Lando obviously doesn't want to face the clear and simple truth: That the American people support Israel and so does the American government. Not because of any lobby and not because of American Jews (though both probably contribute quite a bit to the situation).

We've pretty much covered the main point of the article, but let me just get to the point where Lando's fictional Obama cringingly plays the victim against the oppressive AIPAC:

"I realize this new policy may well subject me to a barrage of the most virulent political attacks - -from right wing TV talkshows to lurid ads filling our media, to congressional resolutions. It will be charged that all along I -- Barrack Hussein Obama -- have been secretly plotting with radical Islam to destroy Israel. And after Israel, the United States..."

"They will say of course, that I am anti-Semitic -- a charge that is leveled these days against any prominent individual who criticizes the current government of Israel."

"But I ask you members of AIPAC -- before you and your allies unleash an attack against me in the media and in the Congress and local communities across the country..."

Well gee, Mr. Lando. You just said that AIPAC (who only represent Jews) rules Washington, Congress, the media, and really of America. I can't imagine why anyone might come to the conclusion that you are anti-Semitic after such a fact-based "criticism" of Israel's "policies." As if one conspiracy theorist dedicated to pushing the myth of the Zionist Occupied Government wasn't enough, now we have two. It must be the Huffington Post.

Comment of the Day

That must be the reason.

The original link.

MJ Rosenberg Goes Off the Deep End

MJ Rosenberg has written a rant for the Huffington Post in response to Obama's speech and the fallout in both Israel and America that reveals far more about him than it does about the things he's writing about. The article shows why Rosenberg is writing for the Huffington Post and not a real newspaper like the New York Times or the Washington Post. It's titled "The Fake Outrage of the Israel-Firsters" and as you might expect it encompasses a long series of ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with Rosenberg about Israel.

What's funny about this article is that a lot of it I agree with. Rosenberg points out that Obama's statement about the 1967 armistice lines as a basis for negotiations is not anything new and has been part of the deal for as long as the peace process has gone on. This is very true. But once he's done with the facts, he moves into his trademark Jewish conspiracy theory. Let's take a look.

"As the Wall Street Journal reported in an article called "Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel," a tiny (but incredibly well-heeled) group of donors told Obama in advance that any deviation from the line laid down by Netanyahu would cost Obama campaign contributions. The article quotes a bunch of fat cats, unknown to most Jewish Americans who essentially threatened Obama."

Sharmine Narwani Is Sensitive

Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani is, as we all know, the voice of morality and decency on the Huffington Post. She is always willing to stand up for the poor, the oppressed, etc. That is why her reaction to a story about Syria killing 900 people with the following comment:

Nice to know if Arabs are killing other Arabs, Ms. Narwani is only concerned about whether those Arabs are religious or not. What a shining example of hypocrisy.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Haniyeh Injured in Soccer Practice

While the Huffington Post does like to humanize the violent Islamist leaders of Hamas, I don't think they'll cover this story:

"Haniyeh suffered an injury during a soccer practice in Gaza City, Palestinian media outlets reported Thursday.
According to reports, the Hamas prime minister injured his leg and was transferred to a local hospital, where he received medical treatment.

The terror group's leader was instructed to rest for at least 10 days, and will not be able to attend practice until his wounded limb is fully recovered. Sources close to Haniyeh said the prime minister has been attending weekly soccer training sessions, boasting that he has not skipped a single practice for more than a year.
The former soccer player frequently participates in sports events, including a celebratory soccer match during the rededication of the Gaza soccer stadium – damaged in an IDF bombardment during Cast Lead Operation in 2009 – where he even managed to score one for the team.

In the past, Haniyeh was known as one of the best soccer players at the Al-Shati refugee camp soccer club and the Islamic association soccer club, where he also served on the board of directors for several years."

Doesn't your heart just go out to the poor suffering Gazans, whose own leader has been struck down by a cruel soccer-related injury?

Blatantly Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Every now and then we get a really, really obvious comment that involves bashing the Jews. The user didn't even try to disguise it this time:

And for the record, this is a thread about water shortages.

The original link.

Gene Simmons on Obama, Israel

Amusing, if nothing else:

Robert Naiman Reveals His Prejudices

HP blogger Robert Naiman has responded to David Harris' response to his own self-congratulatory post about a flotilla to Gaza. In it, Naiman reveals quite a bit of his own prejudices and views of the world. Let's dissect it, shall we?

Naiman leads off with, as all great Palestinian supporters do, with a strawman argument. He writes that Harris claimed that because Hamas is a terrorist organization, everything Israel does to Gaza is justified. Naiman writes, "The overall thrust of David's piece appears to be that Hamas is a monster, and therefore whatever the Israeli government does -- including the blockade of Gaza -- which is claimed to be "in defense against Hamas," is justified." If you read Harris' article, you can see no such statement is made (indeed, Naiman seems to be aware of that as he uses the weasel word "appears," giving him plausible deniability). Once this strawman is constructed, Naiman launches into a diatribe of how all men are created equal, etc., etc. He demands that the Palestinians of Gaza be granted their human rights:

"The 1.6 million Palestinian residents of Gaza did not forfeit their human rights when Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections; nor did the 1.6 million Palestinian residents of Gaza forfeit their human rights when Hamas took control of Gaza. They did not forfeit their human rights, because they could not forfeit their human rights: their human rights are "unalienable," and are not contingent on whether Hamas wins a legislative election; neither are they contingent on whether Gaza is ruled by Hamas."

This statement is an example of how the Palestinians feel their actions should never have consequences. It's quite fascinating. Countries have been fighting wars for centuries, and yet the Palestinians and Mr. Naiman think they are the first people in history to be able to both fight a war and not suffer at all while at war. When countries go to war, they accept, for better or for worse, that they are forfeiting their human rights (to a certain extent) while they go off to violate someone else's human rights. I use the analogy of a prisoner in jail whenever someone tries to make this argument. People have the right to freedom of movement, to travel where they want. However, when a criminal violates someone else's human rights, he or she is placed in jail. Is the criminal's human rights being violated? Clearly, yes. Should anyone care, since the criminal violated someone else's human rights? Clearly, no. 

You can also see here the representation two-step at work. The voters in Gaza voted Hamas to lead them. But once Hamas starts committing crimes, Mr. Naiman demands that the people of Gaza had nothing to do with them, and if the people suffer at all, that's collective punishment. Too bad this logic doesn't apply to the people of Israel, where far left peaceniks are just as targeted by terrorists as far right hawks. 

Shocking News the HP Doesn't Cover: Iran's Involvement in 9/11

From the New York Times:

"Two defectors from Iran's intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials had 'foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks,' according to a court filing Thursday in a federal lawsuit in Manhattan that seeks damages for Iran's 'direct support for, and sponsorship of, the most deadly act of terrorism in American history.'

One of the defectors also claimed that Iran was involved in planning the attacks, the filing said. The defectors' identities and testimony were not revealed in the filing but were being submitted to a judge under seal, said lawyers who brought the original suit against Iran on behalf of families of dozens of 9/11 victims.

The suit's allegation that Iran had foreknowledge of the attacks is hard to assess fully, given that the defectors' testimony is being filed under seal. The suit contends that Iran and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant organization with close ties to Tehran, helped Al Qaeda in planning the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and in facilitating the hijackers' training and travel.

After the attacks, the suit contends, Iran and Hezbollah helped Qaeda operatives escape, providing some with a safe haven in Iran. "

 Too bad the Huffington Post will never cover this story, it would be fun to see the many Iranian apologists try to spin this story.

[H/T Challah Hu Akbar]

The Huffington Post's Latest Stories

The Huffington Post is literally on fire with stories about the discussion between Netanyahu and Obama about the future of the "peace process." There are too many stories for us to get to them all, but I wanted you to take a look at some of the big articles that have received thousands of comments:

Obama: Differences With Israeli PM Are Disputes 'Between Friends'

Israeli PM Rejects Obama's Call To Return To Israel's 1967 Borders

Israeli Leader Laid Out Israel's 'Red Lines' In Meeting With Obama, Came Away 'Encouraged'

Obama Speech Breaks Rhetorical Ground But Unlikely To Bring Common Ground to Israel, Palestinians

Obama's Middle East Speech

 I find these articles fascinating because they allow us to see what the HuffPo readership in general thinks about this situation, beyond the usual Zionists and anti-Zionists. I generally get the impression from the comments that they are (a) mostly about Obama rather than about the situation and (b) generally critical of Obama's actions, regardless of what they are. I have known that ranting about politics is the way most people spend their time on the HuffPo, so I guess it has bled over into this matter as well. 

Comment of the Day

Doesn't require any context whatsoever:

Um...the Protestants?

The original link.

Another Misleading HuffPo Headline

This headline on the Huffington Post was published Friday, the second one about the Netanyahu-Obama meeting:

As usual, one gets the impression from this that Netanyahu rejected the plan that President Obama laid out in his speech. But he really didn't. He objected to the "67 borders" statement made by Obama. And we know that the Huffington Post was aware of this because that was their last headline on Thursday. So really what has happened is that we have the same article twice.

Meanwhile a story about Netanyahu "coming away encouraged" was buried in the "Politics" section, and the reactions of Hamas was ignored completely. I'm not sure what else to conclude except that the Huffington Post clearly has an anti-Netanyahu agenda at least, and probably an anti-Israel agenda as well.

Another Narwani Comment of the Day

In response to the Patricia DeGenno piece:

"Racist regime in Tel Aviv" huh? I can't imagine why anyone would come to the conclusion that ol "Dignity Rockets" here is an idealogue.

The original link

Patricia DeGenno Is Ridiculous

We're used to daily amounts of Israel-bashing coming from the Huffington Post's blogger stable. Sometimes, however, there is an article just so far out that it stands head and shoulders above the rest in its absurd one-sidedness and lack of facts. This time, we have an article by Patricia DeGenno, who has been with the HuffPo for months but has not written so much recently. Her article is one long diatribe against Israel, as we can tell right from the title: "Israel: Your Last Chance is Now."

I guess I will start with the positive views expressed in Ms. DeGenno's article.  She agrees that a full "right" of return is impossible, and suggests instead that new Palestinian refugees be allowed to move into Israeli settlements, but only if the Jewish settlers chose to leave. If they don't, they must be Palestinian citizens. She thinks that Jerusalem should be internationalized and that the both states (ideally) should be demilitarized, but doesn't mind starting with the Palestinians. She is not a one stater, unlike many of her supporters in the comments. As we will see, she has swallowed the Arab narrative whole, without chewing, and blames Israel completely for everything that has gone wrong.

Ms. DeGenno begins by drastically rewriting the history of the "Nakba Day" protests, even though they only took place a few days ago. In her world, they were "unarmed civilians" who merely "moved" toward the border at which point Israel (and Israel alone) fired on them for no reason. The border violations are ignored, the rock and bottle throwing is ignored, the assaulting of Israeli soldiers is ignored. Why? Doesn't fit the narrative, I guess. Hooray for journalistic integrity. Which would be one thing, but then she cranks this falsified history up to the next level so that she can shake her finger at Israel:

"The real strategy for Israel should have been to allow the protesters to reach the border, hold them there and protect their right for peaceful demonstrations. What was obvious though is that Israel is incapable of protecting peaceful protests; it has become much too comfortable instead with solely firing weapons."

I mean, really. This is insulting to my intelligence and to hers. Does she think her readers are idiots? Or that we all pay as little attention to the news as she does? Did she really think we wouldn't notice the videos of the "protesters" crossing the border and attacking the soldiers? And here's another question: Did the Huffington Post editors even notice such blatant untruths in one of their articles? Or did they just not care? Ms. DeGenno certainly didn't. Oh, and of course this rewrite of history is not confined to May 15, 2011. She also rewrites the "Nakba" itself, that the Palestinian exodus occurred and the Palestinian state was lost not because of any war (what war?) but because Israel was declared "unilaterally."

Even though Ms. DeGenno is not in favor of a "one state" (though she clearly wouldn't mind if such a thing were to occur) she also very clearly has a problem with Israel as a state of the Jewish people. In her article she refers to it as a "theocratic state," betraying the common misperception of what Jews are. She also complains further about the Palestinian situation and declares that "No state will remain viable while millions of people are dominated, marginalized or occupied." As if what the Palestinians do has any impact of Israel's existence. Funny how when America invaded and occupied two countries no one questioned its right to exist. Like I said, the Arab narrative has been swallowed. And just in case this wasn't enough evidence of Ms. DeGenno's issue with Israel, let's take a look at a message she wrote in the comments section:

"Closer to the fact is that I do not believe separation by religion or race is sustainabl­e anywhere and Israel itself is actually proving this. It is a nice idea based on a a horrendous past but disengagem­ent from the rest of humanity is not the way to deal with injustice."

Except, of course, this only applies to the Jews and not to the Palestinians. What double standard? Let's move on, because having established her falsified historical record and having made her politics clear, she can now start to make her demands.

A Rare Moment of Balance in HP Reporting

Let it never be said that we don't give credit where credit is due. The Huffington Post has taken some interest in the attempted revocation of an honorary doctorate to Tony Kushner by CUNY due to his Israel views, publishing two blog posts slamming the decision, one by MJ Rosenberg and another by Rabbi Arthur Waskow. I was all set to write a blog post about the HP's biased coverage of this incident, when another blog post was published by Dovid Efune which takes Kushner to task. Here's the best part of his letter:

In making his case against you [Tony Kushner], you accuse Wiesenfeld of using "carefully cropped, contextless quotes taken from interviews," yet you neglect to mention the context of Benny Morris's statements. Namely that his politics have evolved, (his politics leaned strongly to the left when he wrote the statements that you refer to) and that he has stipulated that any Jewish eviction of Arabs in 1948 was necessary to prevent "genocide" against the Jewish people.

Although you claim to never have supported divestment from Israel, it is fair to say that there is a case to be made that by allowing your name to be associated with an organization that is actively involved in such activities without publicly repudiating them, constitutes passive if not active support.

In your letter you reprimand the board of trustees, saying: "Did any of you feel that your responsibilities as trustees of an august institution of higher learning included even briefly discussing the appropriateness of Mr. Weisenfeld's using a public board meeting as a platform for deriding the political opinions of someone with whom he disagrees? "

If you are so in favor of the separation of politics and art, so how is it that last September you so readily signed a public letter of support for artists in Israel refusing to perform in Ariel on political grounds?

So where exactly was Wiesenfeld off the mark? Was it because he neglected to mention that you like to preface your criticisms with a "strong statement of support for Israel's right to exist?" This statement is in itself offensive to many due to its implications and condescending tone."

 So congratulations to the Huffington Post for presenting both sides of this issue. It's a rare thing that we'd like to see more of, but it deserves to be recogniz

Today's Informative HuffPo Headline

This is not an example of bias per se but still worth sharing: the headline the Huffington Post chose for their "World" section is informative not in what it said, but in what it doesn't say:

Does anyone else think it is a little odd that Netanyahu's reaction to President Obama's speech was the main headline but the speech itself was not? I would think that the speech would be the bigger news story. Secondly, Hamas and Abbas had reactions as well, but don't expect anything from the Huffington Post about that.

And of course, let's not forget that it is only ever Netanyahu (or maybe Karzai) who "slams," "snubs" or "bashes" President Obama and the rest of the US government. Other world leaders' insults toward America are either ignored or downplayed. Can't mess with that narrative, don'tcha know.

Comments of the Day

Sounds like someone's been reading Nazi propaganda. Please note further how long it has remained on the HuffPo.

The original link.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Hamas Insists on War, Not Talks

While every Israeli action and statement that might be considered against peace is immediately covered and published on the Huffington Post, inconvenient truths like this recent news story about Hamas usually don't make it:

Hamas spokesman Mahmoud al-Zahar insisted his organization would not negotiate with Israel despite a statement to the contrary made by Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal, the Palestinian paper Al-Quds reported Wednesday.

Mashaal's statement "does not represent the movement's official stance, which is based on a plan of resistance and not negotiations", al-Zahar said.

He added that Gaza's government had not given Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas permission to negotiate with Israel after a joint Hamas-Fatah government is formed, due to a recent Palestinian reconciliation between the rival factions.

"We do not agree to such negotiations and do not encourage them – just the opposite," he said, adding that the speech made by Mashaal on the matter surprised many in the organization.
"There has been no change in the movement's position on everything related to the resistance, which is our only option," he said. 

Nice to know someone in Hamas is still honest enough to talk about the movement's actual goals.

Today's Attacks On HuffPo Bloggers

Both David Harris and Danny Ayalon have written new articles on the Huffington Post, along with a new wave of Israel-related articles involving AIPAC, President Obama's new speech on the Middle East, and so forth. Unsurprisingly, this led to many personal attacks on them that have been allowed to remain up for hours:

Meanwhile, Sharmine Narwani has published something making heroes of the Palestinian rioters from May 15th. See any personal attacks there? Nope...

David Harris' Takedown of Robert Naiman

[In a follow up to my piece on Robert Naiman's desire to help Hamas kill Israelis, here is David Harris' excellent response: "To a Gaza Flotilla Participant."]

You recently wrote in The Huffington Post that you plan to join the flotilla headed for Gaza next month.

You stated that the goal is to "break the blockade of Gaza," and support the "right of self-determination" for the Palestinians there.

You asserted that "everyone on the boat is committed to nonviolence," referring self-importantly to the participants as "well-known American peace activists."

Allow me a few questions.

Oddly missing from your entire article was one word - Hamas. Why?

Could it be that you're unaware that Hamas rules Gaza? Or is the omission because you don't think it's pertinent to the discussion? Or is it that you are aware, but think it might cloud the sunny picture you're trying to paint, so best to skip it?

Obviously, as someone who touts his Middle East credentials, you know of Hamas, so let me understand how you deal with it, since it's impossible to separate the situation in Gaza today from Hamas rule since 2007.

You proclaim your commitment to nonviolence.

How do you square that with Hamas's record of violence, including its bloody seizure of power from the Palestinian Authority four years ago?

Robert Naiman Plays the Victim

Robert Naiman is back again, milking this whole "I'm going on the flotilla" thing for all he's worth. What has happened is that Representative Jan Schakowsky from Illinois has signed a letter encouraging Turkey not to allow a flotilla to go to Gaza again. Apparently this bothered Mr. Naiman so much that he needed to write an article about the flotillas, in which he makes some informative comments. We'll start with this one:

"The feedback that Turkey got from the region following last year's flotilla was: you rock. Arabs were coming to demonstrations carrying pictures of the Turkish Prime Minister. Not only was this high praise for Turkey, it was an obvious reproach to all the Arab leaders: Turkey is doing something about the blockade of Gaza, and you're not doing anything."

We see the flotilla two-step in action. On the one hand, it was a terrible awful tragedy that these people died boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. On the other, wasn't it such a good thing that they died! Go Turkey go! Maybe this time we can get twice as many people killed! Wouldn't that be fantastic? What an excellent devotion to human life these flotilliers and Mr. Naiman have. Of course, I also think it is interesting that yet again the Arab states need to look to somebody else to solve their supposed problems for them. I guess not even Mr. Naiman has yet figured out that the Arab states really couldn't care less about the Palestinians except for the propaganda value.

And then he says something really obvious:

"So, if the letter's authors have any sense at all, they are trying to do something else with their letter besides move the Turkish government. Presumably, they are hoping to discredit the flotilla politically, so that if Israeli authorities use violence against the flotilla, their supporters will feel free to say: "they had it coming.""

Well, gee Mr. Naiman. I don't know. When some of the "activists" were actively admitting that they wanted to die as martyrs, and when many of them stab soldiers half to death and then beat the rest of iron bars and pipes, you don't need a freaking letter to draw the conclusion that they did, in fact, have it coming. Just imagine that they treated the US Coast Guard in this manner and I have feeling that Mr. Naiman and his friends would be singing a different tune. And finally we get to the title of this post, wherein Mr. Naiman plays the sad, oppressed (but righteous) victim:

"So, Jan, I have to ask you: do you consider me to be a "provocation"?
If Israeli authorities kill me, will you say that the action was justified?"

Yeah, Mr. Naiman, you are. You freely admitted in your last article that this was never about helping the people of Gaza but was instead about breaking the blockade and bringing "justice for the Palestinians." You know this, we know this, everybody knows this, so do me a favor and don't pretend that it is not. If you want to help the people of Gaza, follow the rules and send the aid through Egypt. If you want the two sides to make peace so the blockade is no longer necessary, then take steps that will facilitate peace. But you know that running a blockade is an act of war, and you know that it is a violation of international law. If you get in trouble for it, don't look to me for sympathy, you won't get any.

Which of course brings us to his last line, which is rather disturbing. I cannot help but wonder if Mr. Naiman wants to be killed by the Israelis so that he will finally go down in history as a "martyr" for his cause to destroy Israel. We certainly get the expectation from his articles that he expects that will happen, even though 99% of the people who have been on these flotillas have made it out alive. Maybe in the future we'll be seeing Mr. Naiman on one of those videos stabbing a knife into the chest of an IDF soldier or swinging an iron bar with all his strength. But I bet even then he would still call it "non violent resistance."

"Only Israelis Can Commit Massacres"

Anti-Zionist "Shingo" fluctuates rapidly between being somewhat reasonable and rabid hate speech. Here is an example of the latter. He claimed that even though half of the casualties in Cast Lead were militants, it was still a "massacre" because 700 civilians also died. I asked him if this was also true of the Second Intifada, seeing as how 900 civilians died at the hands of the Palestinians. Check out his response:

So  from a comment like this we can actually a learn a lot. For instance, mere "critics" of Israel will do whatever it takes to keep themselves from criticizing the Palestinians, even to the point of twisting words and meanings. We also see a clear ethnocentric bias toward the Palestinians, or at least it is ethnocentric, as that is the only possible reason I can imagine for such blind dedication to Palestinian innocence. Regardless, Shingo has now been exposed as a close-minded propagandist with no understanding of morality. I for one intend to call him on it.

The original link.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: PA Postpones Elections (Again)

One of those inconvenient truths for Palestinian supporters is that every time the Palestinians form a government, it turns out to be a dictatorship. The Palestinians are currently living under the rule of two, Hamas and Fatah. The Huffington Post probably will not cover this news, of the Palestinian Authority postponing elections yet again.

"The government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has decided to postpone municipal elections by three months until October, reasoning they have to make sure elections can be held in both the West Bank and Gaza. 

Municipal elections were initially scheduled for July 9. The new date is October 22, a month after the Palestinian Authority promised to request international recognition of the State of Palestine along the 1967 border and admission as a full member of the United Nations. "

Hey, Abbas was only supposed to be out of office a mere two years ago. What's another couple months among dictators?

Example of a Post: Civilized Nazis

Another comment by our old buddy Darcha that I felt had to be shown on here, because it shows so much of the Huff Poster mindset:

You see here how hatred of Israel can cause HPers to say things that are totally removed from reality. Darcha points out that if the Allies had lost WWII to the Germans, everything would have been fine. "We" could have stayed in our homes, kept our money, etc. (as opposed to the Palestinians who lost the 1948 war). Of course, everyone else is well aware that while white Europeans like Darcha were able to remain in their homes, some other Europeans, namely, Jews, gays, Roma, and Communists among many others, weren't quite as well treated.

Only on the HP can Nazis be described as "civilised" compared to those pesky Jews who dared defend themselves.

The original link.

Narwani Comment of the Day

As I believe I mentioned before, Sharmine Narwani published a propaganda piece about the heroic Palestinians marching on Israel from Lebanon. There isn't much to say about the piece itself, especially since it isn't her work, but there was one user who dared to criticize it. Naturally, ol "Dignity Rockets" needed to bring the beat down herself:

Yep, so we have all the usual talking points: Deflecting onto Israel, wishing for violence against Israel, making wild claims, and of course making personal attacks on the user, even though he is a brand new arrival on the HuffPo. Sure hope she didn't drive away a potential customer there.

As for her claims in the second paragraph, according to Al Jazeera the "protesters" not only threw stones but walked up right next to the border fence. Also, AJ says around 10 were killed...but by whom? Because there are reports that the Lebanese army fired on the protesters too.

Anyway, you might also want to know that comments are getting deleted in this thread too. Why? Who can say.

Comment of the Day

Just more "criticism" of Israel's "policies."

The original link.

Op-Ed: Who Wants Palestine?

[Crossposted from YnetNews]


Does anyone in the region want a Palestinian state now? No. Yet nonetheless, such state may be established after all. Oh, the slyness of history.
At this time, the Palestinians themselves don’t want a state. The Palestinians – and I am referring here to their political and social elites – very much want to see an end to Israel’s occupation. Yet a state is a different story.

The Palestinians understand, for example, that upon the establishment of their state they will have to forever give up the land beyond its borders. They realize that founding the Palestinian nation’s only sovereign state will automatically bury the “right of return.” They understand that economically and geopolitically they will depend on the goodwill of neighboring states.
And what kind of relationship will be maintained between the Palestinians in Palestine and those in Jordan, Lebanon and Israel? Nobody is asking, or answering, this question.
The Palestinian movement has always defined itself as a national liberation movement – liberation from Israel’s occupation – and not as a national revival movement. With the exception of a few remarkable figures, such as Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the PLO did not deal with establishing a future state, because it was in no rush to found one. This is particularly true for Hamas and its affiliates.
The current Palestinian leadership seeks one tangible diplomatic achievement: An end to settlement construction. It views the expanding settlements as an open wound and a constant Jewish provocation. Beyond that, as far as they’re concerned the negotiations with Israel can last forever.
Arab states too do not truly want the Palestinians to soon have a tiny nation-state with an unstable regime; a state that is geographically split and threatens the current order. Had they wanted such state, it would have been established long ago. The indifference over the dream of a sovereign Palestinian state is conspicuous in the democratization wave currently sweeping the Arab street. Some 95% of democracy protestors make no mention of Palestine. They truly don’t care.

Monday Morning Headlines

I clicked on the World section of the HP on Monday morning, and here were the two articles published below the headline article:

Yes, the massacre of twenty plus people including two women and two children earns a fraction of the comments of Arabs protesting Israel does. The two articles were posted within three minutes of each other, so there's no time difference to explain the discrepancy. I guess the hatred on the HP is directed at one country, regardless of what that country actually does. 

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Perhaps the most out there post I have ever read on the HP, published Sunday on the Nakba thread. Read carefully.

The original link.

Another HuffPoster References Stormfront

And five hours later, it is still there.

The original link.

The HuffPo Can't Get Enough I-P Violence

The Huffington Post editorial staff must have been salivating like a St. Bernard yesterday. I know this because they couldn't stop posting articles about the clashes between the IDF and Palestinian rioters in on the borders with Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria. Even though every story said pretty much exactly the same thing, the Huffington Post still published not one, not two, not three, but four stories about it. Here is the first, with the biased headline:

The above thread received almost 5,000 comments. And then we have the second, saying the exact same thing:

Notice how they continue to insist that the rioters are mere "protesters," even after multiple Israeli soldiers were injured by their "peaceful" thrown rocks and bottles. Next we have a barely more accurate, yet still misleading, headline:

Yes. That's right. For no reason at all, like a bolt of lightning from a clear blue sky, violence just "erupted" on the borders of Israel. Why on earth could such a thing have happened!

Heaven forbid the Huffington Post actually tell the truth in their headline: That Syrian rioters charged over the border fences with Israel and violently attacked the soldiers there. Maybe such a thing would violate their narrative of the evil Israelis "firing upon" innocent, harmless protesters.

And then we have the last one (so far) published last night: